6.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Istanbul.
7.  On 12 February 1993 the applicant started working as a judge in Tufanbeyli district in Adana.
8.  On 14 August 1995 the General Command of the Gendarmerie submitted a formal complaint to the judicial inspection board attached to the Ministry of Justice concerning the applicant's behaviour. A disciplinary investigation into the allegations was conducted by a judicial inspector.
9.  On 1 March 1996 the judicial inspection board notified the applicant in writing that a disciplinary investigation had been carried out under Section 82 of Law no. 2802 into a number of acts which he had allegedly committed and which were considered incompatible with his status as a judge. The letter set out the charges against the applicant and he was requested to submit his defence in writing.
10.  The charges, five in all, included the accusation that the applicant had undermined the honour and dignity of the judiciary as well as respect for his own position as a judge (the first charge). The other four charges related, inter alia, to reported incidents of his conflictual behaviour towards his colleagues and to his failure to respect the dress code of the profession and working hours.
11.  The judicial inspector drafted a report dated 27 March 1996, according to which there was no evidence to justify opening an investigation into the first set of charges. However, he stated that evidence had been obtained that the applicant had behaved in a conflictual way with his colleagues and that he shaved only once a week, came late to work and did not wear a tie. This report was submitted to the judicial inspection board of the Ministry of Justice. The Government submitted that the judicial inspector heard evidence from the Governor, the public prosecutor, the applicant and his colleagues.
12.  On 29 April 1996 the Minister of Justice approved the transfer of the whole case file to the Supreme Council of Judges and Public Prosecutors (“the Supreme Council”) with a view to the consideration of possible disciplinary measures under Section 87 of Law no. 2802.
13.  With regard to the first set of charges concerning the accusation that the applicant had undermined the honour and dignity of the judiciary as well as respect for his own position as a judge, the applicant was accused of introducing himself at various social events as being “of Kurdish origin” and of behaving in a manner which displayed his sympathy for the PKK[1]. It was stated that the applicant had said: “If they throw me out of the judiciary, I will go to Germany to join the organisation.” It was further alleged that the applicant talked to Kurdish-speaking citizens in Kurdish in order to gain their sympathy. He was also accused of regularly reading a legal publication of the PKK, Özgür Ülke, until it was banned and of watching Med TV a PKK-controlled television channel, via a satellite, antenna at his home.
14.  In respect of the remaining sets of charges, the applicant was accused of quarrelling on various occasions with the public prosecutor, of shaving only once a week, of not wearing a tie at work and of coming to work late.
15.  In his written submissions to the Supreme Council, the applicant denied the accusations against him, maintaining that they were false, inaccurate and incomplete or had been misinterpreted. He assumed that the evidence against him consisted of statements given by his colleagues and other civil servants. He alleged that certain persons were hostile to him since he had previously lodged formal complaints against them. In this connection, he submitted that, in the past, he had made formal complaints against the public prosecutor, Mr H.A. and the elected major, Mr H.K. The applicant therefore maintained that the public prosecutor, as a result of certain personal and professional disagreements which they had had, spread false accusations against him and had convinced other local government officials to make further similar accusations. The applicant gave some examples of situations where he had been in conflict with the public prosecutor. He affirmed that he believed in all the fundamental principles of the Turkish Republic and served the State faithfully.
16.  He admitted, inter alia, that, on certain occasions and during private conversations, he had stated that he was a Kurd, had criticised certain unlawful acts of the State authorities and had maintained that a distinction should be made between the innocent population of Kurdish origin and the PKK. The applicant submitted that he condemned terrorist acts and that it was an insult to suggest that he sympathised with the PKK. He asserted that while none of his family members and close friends had ever been interrogated for terrorist offences, the public prosecutor's brothers were in custody on allegations of aiding and abetting the PKK and his nephew had been remanded in custody for alleged PKK membership.
17.  The applicant further admitted reading Özgür Ülke which, in his opinion reported, on the events in south-east Turkey, albeit in a biased manner. He argued that the incidents reported in the region were a problem which the country was facing and he, like everyone else, had the right to be informed about them. He pointed out that he also read various other lawful publications for the same purpose. Moreover, he argued that the fact that he read certain lawful partisan publications did not convey his approval of the views expressed therein. As to the allegation that he regularly watched MedTV at home, the applicant explained that he had never been able to watch the channel due to technical difficulties with the reception. He argued that, even if he had watched the channel in question, this was not unlawful. The applicant further refuted the remainder of the accusations brought against him.
18.  On 11 July 1996 the Supreme Council, after assessing the evidence in the file as well as the written defence previously submitted by the applicant, found by a majority that the evidence in the file was sufficient to conclude that the allegations against the applicant were well‑founded. In respect of the first set of accusations, the Supreme Council concluded that the applicant should be transferred to another jurisdiction as a sanction pursuant to Section 68 (a) and (b) of Law no. 2802. In respect of the remaining accusations, the applicant received a reprimand. The contents and the sources of the evidence in the file which were relied on were not restated in the decision.
19.  On 4 November 1996 the applicant requested the Supreme Council to rectify its decision. In his petition, he reiterated his previous submissions and requested that evidence be heard from his colleagues. The applicant maintained, inter alia, that the accusations against him were the result of lies propagated by the public prosecutor and his friends. He affirmed that he had always maintained his impartiality. He also submitted that as a young judge he might have made certain mistakes due to his inexperience, but that he should not be punished in such a harsh manner for his mistakes.
20.  On 14 November 1996 the Supreme Council unanimously rejected the applicant's request for a rectification of its decision.
21.  On 17 April 1997 the Supreme Council's appeals board dismissed the applicant's objections.
22.  The applicant was transferred to Şenpazar district in Kastamonu.
23.  Following an enquiry by the applicant, the Supreme Council decided on 2 October 1997 that the applicant could not be promoted for a period of two years on account of the disciplinary sanction of transfer to another jurisdiction imposed on him pursuant to Section 30 § 4 of the Law no. 2802.
24.  The applicant was subsequently appointed to Çamoluk district in Giresun. His requests of 9 January 1998 and 29 December 1998 to be appointed to a region carrying a higher rank were rejected by the Supreme Council in decisions of 12 February 1998 and 14 April 1999 respectively.
25.  On 9 December 1999 the Supreme Council dismissed the applicant's request for a retroactive promotion. It noted that the disciplinary sanction against the applicant had been erased pursuant to Law no. 4455 and that it would not be an obstacle to future promotions. However, it considered that this situation did not render null and void the Supreme Council's decision not to promote the applicant for two years.
26.  Following a fresh set of disciplinary proceedings, the applicant unwillingly resigned from his post in 2001. The applicant now practises as a lawyer.